Skip to main content

Table 2 Satisfaction Responses with the Technology-Based Intervention

From: Feasibility and acceptability of a technology-based, rural weight management intervention in older adults with obesity

Overall Intervention

Mean

Range

Overall Satisfaction

4.7 ± 0.6

3–5

Recommend the technology-based intervention to a family member

5.0 ± 0.2

4–5

Helpful for patients living in rural areas

4.9 ± 0.4

3–5

Helpful in assisting in achieving goals

4.7 ± 0.7

3–5

Beneficial and worth your time

4.8 ± 0.6

3–5

Video-Based Satisfaction Measures

Mean

Range

Satisfaction with video-conferencing device

4.4 ± 1.0

2–5

Video-conferencing assist in achieving goals

4.7 ± 0.6

3–5

Video easy to use without much difficulty

4.5 ± 0.7

3–5

Physical Therapy

Mean

Range

Program Delivery was useful

4.7 ± 0.6

3–5

Length of session

4.8 ± 0.5

3–5

Number of Sessions

4.7 ± 0.5

3–5

Nutrition

Mean

Range

Program Delivery was useful

4.9 ± 0.3

4–5

Length of session

4.9 ± 0.3

4–5

Number of Session

4.8 ± 0.5

3–5

Willingness for Remote Intervention

N (%)

N (%)

Physical therapy

37 (84.1)

Dietitian sessions

40 (90.9)

Location

Mean

Range

Easier to perform activity

4.1 ± 0.9

3–5

Adequate support for Fitbit

4.2 ± 1.0

1–5

Satisfaction Questions on Fitbit

Mean

Range

Overall satisfaction with Fitbita (n=2)

4.2 ± 0.9

2–5

Easy to use without much difficulty

4.3 ± 0.9

2–5

Real-time feedback helpful in promoting physical activity

4.0 ± 1.0

2–5

Helpful in achieving your goal

3.8 ± 1.0

1–5

  1. aTable range is represented as “min - max”